Page 1 of 2
Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:10 pm
by mr_nool
Turning 26 today.
Football aside, I hope the lad is feeling better now that he is out of the lime light and that he has gotten control over his mental problems and drinking.
And this stays one of my favourite City goals:
[youtube]rJTXbTtLEL8[/youtube]
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:16 pm
by Ted Hughes
Happy birhday to him.
Another another Colin Bell who never even had a hope of getting close to that level, but could have been a very decent player in the Prem.
Tbh though, such is the level of our EDS/U18s set up now, if he was coming through at the club these days, I don't think we'd ever see him. That goes for Ireland, Barton etc too imo, but not SWP, Micah or Ned.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:19 pm
by twosips
Can't say I agree with that, Ted. I thought he had more technical ability and potential than all of those former city youngsters, easily.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:20 pm
by lets all have a disco
That picture of him looking rather large an a kebab house and a few knobheads around him.
Sad picture.
I hope he is feeling better i also think he would have still made it these days.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:31 pm
by Ted Hughes
twosips wrote:Can't say I agree with that, Ted. I thought he had more technical ability and potential than all of those former city youngsters, easily.
Technical ability yes (not moreso than SWP though), football intelligence to a degree, yes. Pace, stamina, strength. No.
That's why there was never any danger of him being Colin Bell (not that he had the skill anyway).
It will be one of the biggest factors in determining who makes it in the coming years imo. We have so many players now who play like MJ from a starting point. MJ stood out because he had more idea how to actually play football, having spent a long time being coached away from City, where the othrs just had abilities but no common sense, awareness or football sense. Ireland & Barton being prime examples.
Nowardays they can pretty much all do the stuff MJ used to do at the same age, but some will lack the physical development, be too slow or not strong enough, to stand alongside our 1st team players. And some will be prefectly ok to do that but not 'special'.
MJ would not stand out at all now imo. But Micah, Ned were awesome & SWP would tackle someone, beat 3 men & score from 25 yards. If he'd been coached in Spain, he would have been incredible.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:38 pm
by Dubciteh
I'm in the minority but i have no sympathy for him, threw his career away for drink and gambling and now a washed up ex pro at 26. I do sympathise he now has some mental problems but i would give my left ball to play for city, he did it,got paid ridiculously for it and wasted it.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:41 pm
by twosips
I hear what you're saying, but i just can't say I agree. I actually thought he had a very respectable turn of pace, and he was quite a broad build in general, bearing in mind he was only 18 when he was playing amongst a bunch of absolute half-wits and has-beens, most who couldn't be arsed, and most who couldn't really read a game for shit. He reminds me of Huws now, who's doing very well at Birmingham, but he had a little more 'flair' - i.e - you'd not be surprised if he burst past a challenge into the area and cooly beat the keeper, or put one in from 20 yards.
In my opinion he just hadn't learned to exert his physical presence yet, which he definitely had the build for, but that stuff comes with time and experience. Look at Sterling now - a much slighter player, one often knocked off the ball frequently last season, but he looks very promising a year later now for Liverpool and physically much stronger and more confident in his physique in challenges. Saw no reason that MJ couldn't have learned that too.
I do agree with regards to Micah, Ned and SWP though. SWP in particular - depressing to see the player he came at Chelsea compared to the one he showed he could be at City.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one i think.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:57 pm
by Ted Hughes
twosips wrote:I hear what you're saying, but i just can't say I agree. I actually thought he had a very respectable turn of pace, and he was quite a broad build in general, bearing in mind he was only 18 when he was playing amongst a bunch of absolute half-wits and has-beens, most who couldn't be arsed, and most who couldn't really read a game for shit. He reminds me of Huws now, who's doing very well at Birmingham, but he had a little more 'flair' - i.e - you'd not be surprised if he burst past a challenge into the area and cooly beat the keeper, or put one in from 20 yards.
In my opinion he just hadn't learned to exert his physical presence yet, which he definitely had the build for, but that stuff comes with time and experience. Look at Sterling now - a much slighter player, one often knocked off the ball frequently last season, but he looks very promising a year later now for Liverpool and physically much stronger and more confident in his physique in challenges. Saw no reason that MJ couldn't have learned that too.
I do agree with regards to Micah, Ned and SWP though. SWP in particular - depressing to see the player he came at Chelsea compared to the one he showed he could be at City.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one i think.
Huws is a good example imo. Much bigger & stronger than Mj, & yes, a bit slower. If Huws was Mj's build, I wouldn't expect to see him get anywhere near to City's first team, but because of his build, & the fact that he is a 'decent' footballer, you could imagine him being a Garcia or a Carrick type player & having a chance finding a niche.
MJ imo, would be competing not with Garcia, he would never have been physically strong enough for that role, but with Silva, Nasri, Yaya, Fernandinho. He was nowhere near their level as a footballer in any aspect.
I realised MJ would never be what we hoped, when I saw him v Chelsea's midfield that season. The difference was too much to make up just by getting older. That goes for Elano too.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:07 pm
by sheblue
Dubciteh wrote:I'm in the minority but i have no sympathy for him, threw his career away for drink and gambling and now a washed up ex pro at 26. I do sympathise he now has some mental problems but i would give my left ball to play for city, he did it,got paid ridiculously for it and wasted it.
If only life was that simple for everyone.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:10 pm
by Breks
twosips wrote:Can't say I agree with that, Ted. I thought he had more technical ability and potential than all of those former city youngsters, easily.
I agree with you. Didi Hamann stated that Johnson was better than Gerrard was at the same age and as he played in midfield with both I would listen to him.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:30 pm
by Lee_R
Only 26. Should have been at his footballing prime now. Sad but it needs to be considered that he was a flawed genius.. if it wasnt for his problems he may never have been as good as he was. Odd but true. Anyway all the best to the lad.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:16 pm
by Ted Hughes
Breks wrote:twosips wrote:Can't say I agree with that, Ted. I thought he had more technical ability and potential than all of those former city youngsters, easily.
I agree with you. Didi Hamann stated that Johnson was better than Gerrard was at the same age and as he played in midfield with both I would listen to him.
Tbh that's ridiculous.
Gerrard was lightyears better than Johnson at absolutely everything, & is the only player I've seen who did look a genuine possibility to reach Bell's level.
Did Hamman must have been pissed.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:49 pm
by Alioune DVToure
The kid definitely had 'that something'. You can always tell a good young midfielder by how much of the ball they see. He was the one under Pearce in early 2007 who got us playing football again. He was our best player that calendar year by far.
He was a joy to watch. Always available to receive the ball, decisive and incisive in possession of it. He was a real footballer, the kid, not just someone who played football. That's what makes his self-destruction so hard to fathom.
We'll never know what he could've been so it's pointless to speculate. He was definitely our best homegrown midfielder since Garry Flitcroft when he emerged, though. Sounds like a shit accolade but Flitcroft was another one who brought some light to a previously drab (although much more effective) team.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:51 pm
by john@staustell
sheblue wrote:Dubciteh wrote:I'm in the minority but i have no sympathy for him, threw his career away for drink and gambling and now a washed up ex pro at 26. I do sympathise he now has some mental problems but i would give my left ball to play for city, he did it,got paid ridiculously for it and wasted it.
If only life was that simple for everyone.
I'm in Dubs' minority.
At the end of the day he didn't have the willpower needed in a professional footballer to overcome bad injury, which snowballed into everything else. No good blaming mental illness but he proved not to be suitable for the career.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:36 pm
by Ted Hughes
Alioune DVToure wrote:The kid definitely had 'that something'. You can always tell a good young midfielder by how much of the ball they see. He was the one under Pearce in early 2007 who got us playing football again. He was our best player that calendar year by far.
He was a joy to watch. Always available to receive the ball, decisive and incisive in possession of it. He was a real footballer, the kid, not just someone who played football. That's what makes his self-destruction so hard to fathom.
We'll never know what he could've been so it's pointless to speculate. He was definitely our best homegrown midfielder since Garry Flitcroft when he emerged, though. Sounds like a shit accolade but Flitcroft was another one who brought some light to a previously drab (although much more effective) team.
Javi Garcia would have looked like Glen Hoddle in that team.
We were incabable of stringing 3 passes together.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:01 pm
by Alioune DVToure
Ted Hughes wrote:Alioune DVToure wrote:The kid definitely had 'that something'. You can always tell a good young midfielder by how much of the ball they see. He was the one under Pearce in early 2007 who got us playing football again. He was our best player that calendar year by far.
He was a joy to watch. Always available to receive the ball, decisive and incisive in possession of it. He was a real footballer, the kid, not just someone who played football. That's what makes his self-destruction so hard to fathom.
We'll never know what he could've been so it's pointless to speculate. He was definitely our best homegrown midfielder since Garry Flitcroft when he emerged, though. Sounds like a shit accolade but Flitcroft was another one who brought some light to a previously drab (although much more effective) team.
Javi Garcia would have looked like Glen Hoddle in that team.
We were incabable of stringing 3 passes together.
It's true, we were dreadful, but for an 18-year-old lad to walk into a relegation-threatened team and immediately start pulling the strings is a big ask. And that's exactly what he did. He always seemed like such a calm and mature head on the pitch, which makes his off-the-field fall from grace all the more baffling (and upsetting). I'm bored of hearing about how much he had and how much he squandered bla bla bla. It's upsetting to me that a young local lad who could stroke the ball around with such panache will never step out for us (or anyone else) ever again.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:13 pm
by Ted Hughes
Alioune DVToure wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:Alioune DVToure wrote:The kid definitely had 'that something'. You can always tell a good young midfielder by how much of the ball they see. He was the one under Pearce in early 2007 who got us playing football again. He was our best player that calendar year by far.
He was a joy to watch. Always available to receive the ball, decisive and incisive in possession of it. He was a real footballer, the kid, not just someone who played football. That's what makes his self-destruction so hard to fathom.
We'll never know what he could've been so it's pointless to speculate. He was definitely our best homegrown midfielder since Garry Flitcroft when he emerged, though. Sounds like a shit accolade but Flitcroft was another one who brought some light to a previously drab (although much more effective) team.
Javi Garcia would have looked like Glen Hoddle in that team.
We were incabable of stringing 3 passes together.
It's true, we were dreadful, but for an 18-year-old lad to walk into a relegation-threatened team and immediately start pulling the strings is a big ask. And that's exactly what he did. He always seemed like such a calm and mature head on the pitch, which makes his off-the-field fall from grace all the more baffling (and upsetting). I'm bored of hearing about how much he had and how much he squandered bla bla bla. It's upsetting to me that a young local lad who could stroke the ball around with such panache will never step out for us (or anyone else) ever again.
Well you mentioned Flitcroft. Although he had a full career, he should have ended up bossing the England team imo. A player like him who can play at centre back, tackle, head pass & score goals or make runs from central midfield, pass, shoot with both feet. He had started to decline before we sold him.
He should have really been something & just fizzled out. Happens to a lot of talented kids coming through the system over here. Mentality seems to be wrong. When you look at Ireland's one brilliant season & see what happened to him, it's also a tragedy. Even Ched Evans was working his way towards the Premier League before deciding to become a rapist.
Sturridge almost threw his career away being a billy big bollocks.
Hope the new academy system we are putting in place can be a good influence from an early age & keep the casualties to a minimum.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:19 pm
by MilnersJaw
Its hard to feel sorry for someone who was earning a wedge from the club and made no attempt to get better.
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:40 pm
by bayblue
Ted Hughes wrote:<null>
... The same Didi Hamman who called YaYa a "liability" - suggests at best that he's a bit prone to exaggeration!
Re: Michael Johnson

Posted:
Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:04 pm
by PoC
I still remember seeing him out on the lash a few years ago just after we played schalke away, I asked him how long it'd be until he was ready to play again and he said 2 months, how wrong he was, quite sad really